Can personality change?

[klokkasju]

Hi everybody,

I recently met a person, who stated that one can not change his character after the age of 20. When I heard this sentence, I was shocked. And don't know why (and after several hours of thinking, I still don't know why) I always assumed that people can change everything about their character regardless how old they are (it may take some effort of course). So this person's thesis caught me off guard and up til now I can't put my mind off this.

I did some basic internet research and first of all found that character may be the wrong term (at least in my mother tongue, which is not English). The attributes I am concerned with are, for instance, being introvert/extrovert, risk appetite, curiosity. They are (in English) referred to as personality traits or just traits. And due to the so called five factor model there are five basic traits which are sufficient to describe a persons personality. And again I was shocked to read, that most researchers believe that the value of this traits doesn't change after the age of 30. As I said before, it was only a basic internet research, so I may have missed the few theories which believe in "unlimited" change of personality. But all the theories I found, stated in one way or another that the major "action" appears in the first 20 or maybe 30 years.

I can't help myself. This idea of "there will come an certain age after which I won't (be able to) change (myself)" scares me. Whatever I read from Steve, I had never the impression that he thinks we can't change. So I hope to find here some ideas about all this "personality change business" which help me figure out why I am so unsure about the "static theories". What do you think about personality changes? Do they occur in every age? Can we deliberately initiate them?

So far, thanks for listening/reading
klokkasju

PS: I am not sure if my usage of "character" and "personality" is totally right. I hope my questions are clear nevertheless.

[Freelancer]

Originally Posted by klokkasju

Hi everybody,

I recently met a person, who stated that one can not change his character after the age of 20. When I heard this sentence, I was shocked. And don't know why (and after several hours of thinking, I still don't know why) I always assumed that people can change everything about their character regardless how old they are (it may take some effort of course). So this person's thesis caught me off guard and up til now I can't put my mind off this.

I did some basic internet research and first of all found that character may be the wrong term (at least in my mother tongue, which is not English). The attributes I am concerned with are, for instance, being introvert/extrovert, risk appetite, curiosity. They are (in English) referred to as personality traits or just traits. And due to the so called five factor model there are five basic traits which are sufficient to describe a persons personality. And again I was shocked to read, that most researchers believe that the value of this traits doesn't change after the age of 30. As I said before, it was only a basic internet research, so I may have missed the few theories which believe in "unlimited" change of personality. But all the theories I found, stated in one way or another that the major "action" appears in the first 20 or maybe 30 years.

I can't help myself. This idea of "there will come an certain age after which I won't (be able to) change (myself)" scares me. Whatever I read from Steve, I had never the impression that he thinks we can't change. So I hope to find here some ideas about all this "personality change business" which help me figure out why I am so unsure about the "static theories". What do you think about personality changes? Do they occur in every age? Can we deliberately initiate them?

So far, thanks for listening/reading
klokkasju

PS: I am not sure if my usage of "character" and "personality" is totally right. I hope my questions are clear nevertheless.

I don't know these studies and frankly I don't care about them either.

From personal experience I know I can change after the age of 20 (I'm nearly 22 and most of my changes happened in the last year ) and I know a guy who changed completely in his late 30's.

My basic proposition is that these studies are aimed at the average group, the individuals who never seriously get into Personal Development. The guys and girls who scratch the service and never go deep, they greatly outnumber the people that are determined to go for it. So if you take a sample from the population and do tests to determine if they have changed personality wise then yeah the number of people that change is tiny. Not because its not possible but because most people are just to comfortable in there own little shells to change who they are.

Neuro plasticity is also interesting, check it out:
Neuroplasticity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Mags]

According to the theories, most people's personality does become fairly stable after adolescence. Again, according to the theories, large scale change is very rare, although it is usually acknowledged that people will experience smaller changes within a certain range either side of their preferred point on the continuum of each characteristic (e.g. the continuum between Introversion-Extraversion).

These theories don't always take into account people who actively work to change their personalities, such as through personal development. Once a base point is established after adolescence, it can be a challenge to move away from it, but it can be done. The base point can be shifted.

Remember also that, although there are many researchers still working to establish new theories of personality, many of the ones currently in use were developed quite a few years ago, and often reflect a more stable worldview (e.g. the view of getting a job and sticking with it for life), which may not be as relevant today.

[Bruce Achterberg]

Ok, so practically everyone you talk to about this will give you very vague answers that, really, aren't terribly helpful. I will do the opposite.

Firstly, don't expect to understand this topic overnight. It's likley that you're going to have to learn a whole new way of thinking--one that will benefit you for the rest of your life--before you can understand the area you're trying to fathom.

My recommendation would be to read Now, Discover Your Strengths. That book will give you a base understanding about strengths and talents, and give you a language you can use to describe them (i.e. the various "talent themes" mentioned in the book). As for discovering your talents... when I have a good resource I can highly recommend, I'll start doing so.

There's nothing scary about not being able to change your talents; in fact, it'd probably be scarier if you could change your talents, since, well, read Now, Discover Your Strengths and that will become clear.

Oh and the research shows that it's around the age of 16 where your talents--the synaptic connections in your brain--stop changing significantly and start becoming less "malleable" (figuratively speaking). (Source: Book, Go Put Your Strengths To Work.)

The book, The One Thing You Need to Know has a section on the biology of synapses and talent, but it doesn't go into as much detail as I would have liked it to and still leaves some things unexplained. Here's a super-nice summary of The One Thing... (that in no way acts as a replacement for the book, since it doesn't include all the detail that is usually needed to make people even consider this type of thinking, since other, less useful thinking is predominant).

My advice to you is to throw away any vague definition you use for and start becoming very specific and clear. Most people throw around words like "talent" like candy, without having the slightest clue as to what it really means. A key technique I use to find people who are speaking, but not really speaking (which happens when you use words that you don't really understand the meaning of) is to ask people to define a word they just used. E.g. If someone says, "That was a great presentation. You have great talent" I'd ask them to define "talent" to find out what they really mean, since "talent" (when most people use it) tells me nothing. It's sort of a blank filler word that anesthetises your brain.

You'd also do well to read the following article, since it teaches *great* lessons on thinking with clarity and actually being effective. It's helped me become a much better writer and speaker. On the downside, virutally nobody else thinks clearly, so communicating with people who aren't very specific and clear (even people you'd call "intelligent" don't do it... and yep, if I were you, I'd be asking me to define "intelligent" ) becomes a bit of a chore since, in general, people use English to reflect their thinking (which is often very unclear and subjective, and more about emotion than words that accurately represent their emotion) instead of carefully choosing words that have definitions that match what they're feeling and then using English as a language as it's intended to be used (and yes, I butchered that explanation, but it's a pretty hard concept to explain... very abstract; I need more practice).

But yeah, the link:

Sirlin.net — Writing Well, Part 2: Clear Thinking, Clear Writing

Another tip: if you think you understand something, try to write about it. To the degree that you can express it concisely and effectively is the degree you understand it. You may have an intuitive, subconscious grasp of something, but that won't help when you're communicating with people unless they have similar experience to you.

Final tip: if you want to know more about talent and strengths, search for "talent" and "strengths" and "strength" using an advanced search using my name ("Bruce Achterberg"). You'll further your education about strengths, since I've written a fair bit about them and linked to some nice sites.

Boy, I just can't stop giving tips: I'm going to be posting some links to various resources I find useful in my Twitter account (Twitter / bruceachterberg), so feel free to check that out. I'll make a special effort to posts some links about talent, since virtually no one truly understands it (I've researched and studied it in both life and other sources... lots).

[AlexG]

"Can personality change?"

Absolutely!

[javed]

Bruce

So I take your post as a YES or NO??

[Bruce Achterberg]

Originally Posted by javed

Bruce

So I take your post as a YES or NO??

You take my post as a pointer to reading Now, Discover Your Strengths.

I intentionally steered clear of giving a direct answer, since a direct answer won't really help you that much. If I can arouse your interest enough to at least look into strength-theory a bit (even if you don't read the book), well... I can't make guarantees, but it's one of the best resources on the planet. The opportunity to further utilise your potential is there.

To answer you directly, no, you can't change your talents. You can change how they manifest, and your skills and knowledge, too, but your talents are mostly locked in from the age of 16, and only extreme things such as the loss of a limb (and the learning to live without it) can trigger significant synaptic growth, triggering changes in your dominant, consistent patterns of thought, feeling, and behaviour.

Notice how I used the word "talents" instead of "personality", not answering the question once again?

[Bruce Achterberg]

That said, to throw a further spanner in the "you're here for growth, not to get easy answers" works, I read the neuro plasticity article and it resonates with my suspicion that thought can indeed change the brain to a certain degree, it's just that we're not really good at applying it (kind of like the LoA, etc).

Most of what I write is based on research, but a large part is based on experience, and the quest to utilise human potential. So while I may espouse certain research and theories, I am merely using them as labels for a phenomena. What they point it will continue to evolve, and our understanding about it will deepen. But that's just how life works.

People like to think of science as absolute; I like to think of science as an interesting, yet very limited perspective that reflects our current development. So long as you understand that, you can use the "labels" you encounter in the field of science without getting bogged down in immutable knowledge of "what is."

Do understand, though; this doesn't discount what we currently know. It just gives us a better view of the bigger picture. I like to think of things in terms of complete and incomplete, not right or wrong. It's all just a matter of perspective.

Now you can commence being confused. To help with that, perhaps buy Steve's book.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by Bruce Achterberg

That said, to throw a further spanner in the "you're here for growth, not to get easy answers" works, I read the neuro plasticity article and it resonates with my suspicion that thought can indeed change the brain to a certain degree, it's just that we're not really good at applying it (kind of like the LoA, etc).

Google Joe Dispenza. We can change our brains (literally, our brain's chemistry) by thought, we can change our personalities, anything, at any age. We just never knew how. But we have that good old neuro=plasticity.

[klokkasju]

Originally Posted by Bruce Achterberg

My advice to you is to throw away any vague definition you use for and start becoming very specific and clear.

You've got me there! I admit I started this thread without having a clear definition of "character" and/or "personality" in mind. I was hoping against better knowledge there would pop up a sharp definition in the answers. And I definitely agree with you about how to think clearly and that most people don't. I always tear my hair when talking to friends of mine who don't study natural sciences and hence often even don't know what a definition IS.

Originally Posted by Bruce Achterberg

even people you'd call "intelligent" don't do it [think clearly]... and yep, if I were you, I'd be asking me to define "intelligent"

I'm rather curious about how you know what kind of people I call intelligent? ..

Originally Posted by Bruce Achterberg

That book [i.e. Now, Discover Your Strengths] will give you a base understanding about strengths and talents, and give you a language you can use to describe them (i.e. the various "talent themes" mentioned in the book)

So what do you mean by "strengths" and "talents"? .... ok, I know I should read the book. But honestly the table of contents doesn't look very attractive to me. Maybe that is due to my naive definition of strengths (=things/activities one is better at than most people around oneself) and talents(=things/activities one might be become better at than most people around oneself if one practices hard/often/long enough). So, I'll only have a look at the book, if I find it in one of the libraries available to me.

Originally Posted by Bruce Achterberg

Another tip: if you think you understand something, try to write about it. To the degree that you can express it concisely and effectively is the degree you understand it. You may have an intuitive, subconscious grasp of something, but that won't help when you're communicating with people unless they have similar experience to you.

I'd even go further and say: If you try to understand something, write about it!
And that's exactly what I'm doing right now. In a way you could say that I abuse this forum for getting my thoughts about all this straight .

Originally Posted by Bruce Achterberg

I read the neuro plasticity article and it resonates with my suspicion that thought can indeed change the brain to a certain degree, it's just that we're not really good at applying it (kind of like the LoA, etc).

i.e. we can change our personality (whatever it is precisely, in my opinion it is deeply anchored in our brain and - at least for the most part - a result of our brain structure/"wiring") if we want. Not within a blink of an eye, but with conscious effort.

So maybe my actual question was: what is (the/my/your definition of) personality?

I have got to think about this ...
klokkasju

[ZHereford]

Originally Posted by klokkasju

What do you think about personality changes? Do they occur in every age? Can we deliberately initiate them?

We are all born with certain dispositions, preferences and inclinations. During our lifetimes we are also exposed to different ideas, beliefs and cultural influences.

Regardless to, and in spite of all of this, we have the ability to think critically, choose our values and shape our personalities no matter what our age. We have the ability to think, discern and make behavioral and cognitive choices.

Does this change or alter 'the personality'? Probably. Here's an article I wrote on personality 10 Ways To Improve Your Personality that might give you something to think about.

[Stu]

Glad to see you mentioning neuroplasticity Bruce I'm definitely of the opinion that neuroplasticity is the way we change our brains and hence our habits, personality, traits, etc... ( What Neuroplasticity can Teach us About Personal Growth )

The thing is, like Bruce alludes to, change isn't easy. And the bigger the change, the harder it is to do. I think just about any change, no matter how drastic, is possible, but you either have to be highly motivated by external factors or else have a lot of internal, self-propelled motivation to make those big changes happen.

[Brutha]

To answer you directly, no, you can't change your talents. You can change how they manifest, and your skills and knowledge, too, but your talents are mostly locked in from the age of 16,

What is the evidence for that claim?
Is there some peer reviewed research that uses the definition of talent that you use (strengths) that came to that conclusion?
I don't think that there is research out there that can substantiate such a claim at the moment. We don't understand the brain good enough to distinguish things that can be changed via neuroplasticity from things that don't.

Did someone run a lodscore analysis for the genetic components of the strengths in that framework?

[Remiel]

We don't have any real evidence one way or another. I personally believe things like talent and innate personality are fixed. Yet I also believe that we can to some extent modify them with effort or in some cases something extreme happening in our lives. So say a close loved one being murdered in front of your eyes. Not the usual thing but I do believe it happens.


For personality I personally like the DISC test. It deals with both the natural and the adjusted personality. The adjusted personality is the one we pick up and use due to our circumstances in life.

Introvert / Extrovert can definately change with practice. Heck I'm both (due to aspergers (introvert) and my personality (extrovert).

[Fullcrum]

It's weird I never saw this thread before.

Freelancer, you know of neuro-plasticity, too?! Haha awesome. I just read a book on it called "The Brain that Changes Itself: Stories of Personal Triumph from the Frontiers of Brain Science".

It's about real studies, real people, and real situations that the author experienced while researching about neuro-plasticity, the brain's ability to change itself and it's relationship with the world. Watching discovery channel documentaries on the brain does not give you the half of it!

To give an eye-catching example that illustrates not the exception to the rule, but the rule, is a man who, in the 1960s, created a device with 140 closely-placed pegs hooked up to a camera. The pegs are like a low resolution computer screen, transmuting the sense of touch to accomodate vision. The pegs touch the body in dark spots and are off the body in light spots. People could actually perceive 3 dimensions with this device, which has been much improved today and is now placed on the tongue. Think of that! Senses changing!

With this in mind, personality change is a snap. The author, Norman Doidge, also worked with others in psychoanalysis and psychotherapy to heal their personalities. One man profoundly changed his personality in his 50s after childhood trauma and many bad things happening to him.

I, too, shared little interest in these studies, until I actually read them. For our purposes, this is more than enough evidence that personality can be changed.

Don't believe the naysayers. There's too much evidence backing up the truth.

The website: Norman Doidge, M.D. | The Brain That Changes Itself

Read it!

[Rosie]

Yes, absolutely, character can change after twenty!!! I used to be an extremely emotional person, and now I'm very very grounded. Also, I've seen people, who are so introverted they could barely speak in public, become these amazingly vibrant, loud, and extroverted people. Sure, it might be hard, and unlikely, but it is possible.

[Bruce Achterberg]

Originally Posted by Stu

Glad to see you mentioning neuroplasticity Bruce I'm definitely of the opinion that neuroplasticity is the way we change our brains and hence our habits, personality, traits, etc... ( What Neuroplasticity can Teach us About Personal Growth )

The thing is, like Bruce alludes to, change isn't easy. And the bigger the change, the harder it is to do. I think just about any change, no matter how drastic, is possible, but you either have to be highly motivated by external factors or else have a lot of internal, self-propelled motivation to make those big changes happen.

Yes. "Change" is certainly possible, but in terms of re-wiring an entire personality network (and it literally is like that--it's a network of synapses in your brain, kind of like a tapestry woven together), it will be extremely, extremely difficult (not to mention a huge waste of potential).

The hidden goal behind all strengths-theory is that it's all about effectiveness and how people can be most effective. So, with effectiveness prioritised, it is highly ineffective to try and change your personality (and when I say "personality", I am referring to talents in the Marcus Buckingham, Gallup sense).

You will, however, get a lot of leeway from working from your talents when you're trying to change anything. When you do, you acknowledge the most dominant parts of your mental network, and you'll be using all of that existing architecture (i.e. your talents) to make the changes. Your talents won't change, but perhaps the way they express themselves and the way they interact with other neurons in your brain will. (I'm not a biology expert here--yet!--so I can only speak generally and conceptually.)

So feel free to go change away if you really must. Just know that you have the most potential for contribution, and the most capacity for almost anything you can name, when you're aligned with your talents and honing them into strengths with skills and knowledge. When you do that, everybody wins.

[Brutha]

Your talents won't change, but perhaps the way they express themselves and the way they interact with other neurons in your brain will.

There is really no added information when you talk about neurons, it just sounds more "scientific".
It might also just be wrong (you don't know until you research), because talents don't have to be about brain wiring.
The could also come from the fact that there is a higher amount of some chemical in the brains of those persons with the talent compared to people who don't have the talent.
Maybe the people with the talent also have a mutation in some gen that produces a better protein that increase some mental function.
It could also be a mix out of different factors (and different talents could have different factors).

It would be interest to have reaserch the neurobiological basis of those talents, but until that point it's easy to be wrong when one just talks a bit about neurons doing something.

[The Large Dude Scam]

There is scientific evidence that we can change at any age. It's called neuroplasticity and occurs as long as you're alive.

Neuroplasticity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Bruce Achterberg]

Originally Posted by Fullcrum

I, too, shared little interest in these studies, until I actually read them. For our purposes, this is more than enough evidence that personality can be changed.

Don't believe the naysayers. There's too much evidence backing up the truth.

As with all personal development, you should trust yourself. It it up to you to choose what to believe.

That said, I still see a lot of people throwing around words that aren't very well defined. From my experience, beware of that.

Also beware of studies that don't have significant focus on real-world application.

I'm not saying the neuro plasticity study is right or wrong; what I'm saying is that it is vitally important to define your terms. From my experience, people waste most of their time with communication because they're either arguing about semantics, or they don't understand what each other are saying conceptually.

I could define the terms I've used more (such as "talent"), but it's much easier if you look into Now, Discover Your Strengths or any work by Marcus Buckingham and some of the strengths work by the Gallup Organisation (for the most part, Buckingham is who you want to go to). At least, my Twitter page has some decent strengths-based links on it to start off those who are interested off.

I see there's a real need for clarity in this area. Even when people reference studies, are they getting results from their knowledge--actually things they embody and can apply--or are they re-hashing from what they've heard or read?

I'd like to think that I get results from what I know, and honestly, I wouldn't focus on it if I didn't see significant potential for real-world application. I care not for theories or "truth"--I care about what works.

I'm considering sharing some of what I know about strengths and talent. I have a decent amount of education on the subject from reading and studying people who are strength aligned, as well as observing myself (I'm 49% talent aligned and estimated to be 73% in the near future--at least, at the time I took the SET test. 49% is significant; most people get in the 20% area or worse). I'm also fairly talent aligned myself (my 49% comes from other limiting factors, as well as my extreme specificness--which is my choice; if I was less specific, I could easily be about 65% talent aligned), and my particular combination of talents allows me to understand things with a certain depth that isn't too common.

My main hangup is that while I can sprout off all this knowledge, are people really going to use it? I've spoken to so many people about strengths and talents, and for the large part, their attitude is, "oh, that sounds nice" (or perhaps even skepticism and a complete disinclination to even consider the topic!), and they go back to doing whatever it is they do. I can't help those people; they don't want information, they want to maintain the way they're currently living and a myriad of other issues I won't go into.

This will of course happen with any type of knowledge work you do, especially in the personal development area. Right now though, I'm just weighing up whether it would be a good use of my strengths, given what I've recently learned about my talent themes.

[Bruce Achterberg]

Originally Posted by The Large Dude Scam

There is scientific evidence that we can change at any age. It's called neuroplasticity and occurs as long as you're alive.

Neuroplasticity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can someone who is familiar with Marcus Buckingham's work and also neuroplasticity tell me the general gist of neuroplasticity in clearly defined terms?

Right now people are being very vague, and not really saying anything. (And the Wikipedia article is largely uninteresting. Nothing that leaps out at me as "this is important." It just seems more like, "yeah, ok... and?" Forgive me if I'm critical when it comes to ideas, but I put a premium on only spending time with the most impactful ideas there are. It's how I work best, given my understanding of my talents and my general functioning--i.e., how I'm effective.)

I'm all for considering practically anything, but I tend to focus on things that seem impactful. This seems too general by nature to be impactful. Saying "we can change" isn't a significant insight. It's nice that they've got the scientific evidence to back it up, but I'm interested in how this can specifically help results, and more specifically, how it has helped people who are the best in the world at what they do either reach that point or become better.

[Bruce Achterberg]

Originally Posted by Brutha

There is really no added information when you talk about neurons, it just sounds more "scientific".
It might also just be wrong (you don't know until you research), because talents don't have to be about brain wiring.
The could also come from the fact that there is a higher amount of some chemical in the brains of those persons with the talent compared to people who don't have the talent.
Maybe the people with the talent also have a mutation in some gen that produces a better protein that increase some mental function.
It could also be a mix out of different factors (and different talents could have different factors).

It would be interest to have reaserch the neurobiological basis of those talents, but until that point it's easy to be wrong when one just talks a bit about neurons doing something.

Your talents arise from your synaptic connections, and your synaptic connections arise from your genes.

Talent is not something you either have or not; everybody has talent, just as we all have genes.

As always, heh, you seem to be doing the thing where you try to be critical about what I'm saying without really understanding what I'm saying.

Interestingly, this is because of your talent configuration (that is different from my configuration, and the configuration of someone else), and from experience, interacting with people with talents similar to yours is, at least for me, not productive.

So yeah, you can read my posts, etc, but I'm not going to respond. Trust me when I say it won't be in either of our best interest.

[Dan.Linehan]

Gene expression can be changed through dietary or lifestyle changes.

[Bruce Achterberg]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Gene expression can be changed through dietary or lifestyle changes.

That's interesting.

It seems I need to dive into the biology rabbit hole so I can figure out how genes relate to neurons, and neurons to synapses. I already have a general enough idea of how synapses relate to influencing us, but I would like a more technical understanding (i.e. how it actually works in the brain), as well as an understanding about how "skills" and "knowledge" tie into that (I've no idea how the brain stores information--how it specifically stores it, not just "it has something to do with neurons"--or "skill", and whether "skill" is just some term we use, when the way the brain stores it is vastly different. You can infuse a talent with knowledge and skill to create a strength, but I bet that's more conceptual than actually mechanical, in terms of how the brain works.)

From what I've read, at a certain point after they've formed (I don't remember exactly when), synapse connections become coated with a certain protein, or something, and it becomes biologically inefficient for them to... well, it's complicated. I'll explain more in my post after this.

But yeah, there's more to this; I only know the tip of the iceberg in terms of the biology--the underlying mechanics-- of talent. I'll dive into the heavy brain science once I get a chance to immerse myself in it.

Heh, just when people think I'm already hard enough to understand!

[Bruce Achterberg]

So I was disatisfied with my vague description of synapses. Here's a better one:

Does learning slow down during the course of your life? The simple answer is yes. It takes significant [biological] resources to forge new synaptic connections—genes have to be turned on, proteins created, synapses fired, blood vessels built—and nature is not in the habit of wasting resources unnecesarily. Consequently, once connections have been forged, your brain is designed to protect these connections by insulating them with a substance called myelin. This protection ensures that you don't have to keep relearning things you've already learned, such as eye-hand coordination or the name of your mother. But this myelin coating is not without its costs. It actively hinders synaptic growth. This is why a very young monkey, whose left eye has been covered with a patch, can regain the use of the covered eye when the patch is removed, but an adult monkey cannot. [I feel for those poor testing monkeys, but I'm making assumptions.] It is also why brain injuries suffered in adulthood prove much more persistent than those suffered in childhood, and why learning a foreign language is much easier at five than it is at thirty-five.

This is not to say that all synaptic connecting stops after adolescence. In a series of famos experiemnts, people who became blind as adults and who had to learn Braille were found to have significant synaptic growth in the areas of their brain dealing with touch and synaptic depleetion in those areas dealing with sight. But it does mean that, when you reach adulthood, your brain is much less malleable than it was in childhood, and therefor that, when it comes to learning, your adult brain will always be looking for the least biologically costly way to forge new connections.

— Page 241–242, The One Thing You Need to Know by Marcus Buckingham.

Now my questions would be:

Why does the myelin coating hinder connections?

If it is biologically more cost-effective to build on existing connections, how do the connections actually form? (Or something like that. Marcus implies that it's better to use existing connections, but he doesn't go into detail about why or how new synpases are created without running into the myelin coating issue. I need to know that so I can conceptualise into a mental model.)

Those are things I'd like to look into, just like one day months ago I asked "what is talent? What is a strength? What is the difference between a talent and a strength? What role does personality play in all of this?".

For now, I choose to trust Marcus. I'm sure he's done his research. I've done well using this approach of "give experts who seem to have proven success in their field some credit and trust that what they're saying is accurate in pointing to effectiveness, even if their definitions and the science of it could be improved, and try out things for myself."

Explanations are good, but science is always incomplete. I'm interested in learning more, then considering how it might be possible (but since there's so much to learn, I tend to be busy with the "learning more" part, heh; it's also a better fit for my "input" talent theme). We're always gaining new perspective, and there's a chance that new "territory" is being created every day, so I don't worry too much about having an accurate explanation.

I'm interested in the effectiveness part of this. In general, I'm more interested in finding people who have results, then finding out how they get them, then perhaps trying to figure out the mechanics underneath it. In general though, I prefer to get the results first, then worry about the mechanics.

(This part might appeal to you, Brutha.) All of the Gallup work on talents started by first asking something along the lines of "why are certain teams more effective than others?" After a long study, they noticed certain teams were more engaged (and "engaged" is a term from Marcus Buckingham's language; I'm not using it in the general sense of the word; no need to define it--keep reading), and they learned the source of this engagement came from the fact that they were using their talents.

It'll require far too many words to explain what's actually happening when you're using your talents, but to put it very simply: you're aligning with your biological resources as best you can and making use of them.

Right now, few people make use of them, which is a huge waste of potential. I feel such a strong draw to a utilising potential that I'm very interested in how to do it effectively, holistically, easily, sustainably, and consistently.

Explaining the specific mechanics, while I would like to know them because I like to soak up information (which comes from my Input talent theme), in terms of my Strategic and Maximiser talent themes, it isn't too important to me. (I know those naturally drawn to seeking accuracy will cringe at hearing that, heh.)

Postscript

From taking the StrengthsFinder 2.0 test--a test that really targeted my instinctive draw towards certain themes of behaviour, thought, and feeling, much more than my StrengthsFinder 1.0 test did--I learned that my draw to using potential has to do with my Maximiser talent theme. My Achiever and Activator talent themes aren't helping much, either, heh.

What's I love about my StrengthsFinder 2.0 results is that, prior to the test, I didn't even know that I naturally did this to the degree I did. I knew I was drawn to improvement, but I was so close to the figurative "lens" of my talents that I didn't see how much I was drawn to improvement.

As a rule, you know you've hit on an innate talent when (A) you didn't even realise you were drawn to a certain type of thought, feeling, or behaviour as much as you are, and (B) it blows your mind that other people aren't as interested in something (such as improvement) as you are (which is a sure sign you're working with a talent, since your talent creates that "hidden in plain sight" quality that biases your perspective).

I'm sure this postscript will confuse a bunch of people. It's mostly a nod to those who know the talent theme language of StrengthsFinder, as well as a nudge to those who don't to "learn the language" (which has nothing to do with learning the language, and everything to do with being able to describe your talents and being aware of what your specific talents actually are).

[A.K.Light]

I think what they mean when they say personality cannot change is that you won't go from being an introvert to being an extrovert or something like that. And why would you want to? (You'd just find harmony between the two.) Changing is not the goal - it's growth. If you keep growing, there are no limitations that you need to worry about running into.

Besides, I think you can always do whatever you want to do. If you've changed enough internally to see that you want to do something different, you're already on your way so what would stop you other than yourself?

[Brutha]

As always, heh, you seem to be doing the thing where you try to be critical about what I'm saying without really understanding what I'm saying.

I'm sorry if I was a bit harsh on you.

There is a mainstream scientific theory about personality that the person who started the thread linked to.
You think that a theory that (as far as I know [strengths are a bad keyword to search for]) has no peer reviewed research to back it up, is more specific and can solve the question better.

The mainstream theory has had some research that gives an indication about genetic influences and also on the question of whether average people can sometimes change their personality (at least according to wikipedia, I haven't read the papers they link to).

I've done well using this approach of "give experts who seem to have proven success in their field some credit and trust that what they're saying is accurate in pointing to effectiveness, even if their definitions and the science of it could be improved, and try out things for myself."

Marcus has no peer reviewed papers on neuroscience which makes him no real expert in neuroscience.
He may be a expert in another field but I he's no neuroscientist.

Back to those synapnes.
Hormores for example work very fast without changing much of neuron wiring. Certain genetic variations could lead to a larger amount of a given hormone at certain times.

If talents create feelings I don't think it's a far out idea that it could have something to do with hormone production.

[Bruce Achterberg]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I'm sorry if I was a bit harsh on you.

There is a mainstream scientific theory about personality that the person who started the thread linked to.
You think that a theory that (as far as I know [strengths are a bad keyword to search for]) has no peer reviewed research to back it up, is more specific and can solve the question better.

The mainstream theory has had some research that gives an indication about genetic influences and also on the question of whether average people can sometimes change their personality (at least according to wikipedia, I haven't read the papers they link to).
Marcus has no peer reviewed papers on neuroscience which makes him no real expert in neuroscience.
He may be a expert in another field but I he's no neuroscientist.

Back to those synapnes.
Hormores for example work very fast without changing much of neuron wiring. Certain genetic variations could lead to a larger amount of a given hormone at certain times.

If talents create feelings I don't think it's a far out idea that it could have something to do with hormone production.

Reasonable points and a reasonable post.

When I learn more about the biology of talents, I'll be better able to reply to you.

In general, I tend to not pay much attention to science because it's not holistic enough. I take what is useful and what is needed.

You seem to want some sort of conclusion or understanding, which is fair enough, so look at it like this:

Steve may not be an expert in many fields, yet he's essentially mapped consciousness with his new book. Is it scientific? Probably not. Is it effective? Yes (I know; I apply his principles right now).

Sometimes it's pretty unnecessary to have all the research. When we're more advanced I think research might be worth considering. For the moment, I think we need to focus on potential a bit more since our capacity is nowhere near being 80% utilised. That drives me to do something about that. Marcus Buckingham, too.

If you'd like to fast track my talent biology research you can send me all the really good info you have on neuroscience, hormones, and the like. I don't want just general documents, though. I want revolutionary, cutting-edge stuff that's high leverage. Preferably something is written in a way I can understand without having to go to get a degree first. (Although don't let that constraint limit you if you have 1337 material.)